To Wit, which is a blog about music, politics, movies, a certain public radio show, sloths, breakfast cereals, and the small, undocumented bits of life that constitute reality.

Menu

Miner Offense

Speaking for Republicans on the subcommittee, Representative Craig Miner, co-chairman of the guns subcommittee, said: “We believe it’s not the gun that kills the person. It’s the person that actually kills the person. That sounds kind of cold, but that’s the way it is.”

I’m flabbergasted. And offended. This of course is just a thin restatement of “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Which the oldest, hoariest cliche in the gun policy debate, a 30-year-old bumper sticker so worn and faded that even the NRA has tried to replace it with other memes.

These poor people down in Newtown are expecting the deaths of those little kids and their teachers to drive politicians to engage with this issue fully and in a whole new way. They are expecting more than a crude rewording of the most stale platitude available. This was the best you could do to honor these deaths?

In my Sunday column, I’ll be dealing with all the ways that statement doesn’t even hold up to analysis. But for the moment, I’d ask you to contemplate the effrontery of the words themselves. They represent such an astonishing poverty of thought and effort.

Given a choice between this kind of fourth-rate rhetoric — so insulting to people who have a right to expect more –and Ernest Hewett, I’ll take the snake guy any day.

Post navigation

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

93 thoughts on “Miner Offense”

Equally annoying is the argument that a gun is simply a tool, much like a hammer. The purpose of a gun is to cause harm or to kill a person or animal, they serve no other purpose. In my opinion, gun violence is a subset of the larger problem of violence in society. So, for me the root cause for gun violence is access to a gun. The control of guns may not stop the problem of people harming each other, but at least limiting access to guns will reduce accidental and impulsive (alcohol/drug driven anger, or people who can’t manage their emotions) regrettable actions. Once the trigger is pulled there is no chance to hit the reset button-to stop and think.
The republican proposals listed in the Courant today are pathetically lacking in addressing the problem

A firearm is a tool designed to expel a projectile at a high velocity. Whether its pointed at paper, steel or something living is only due to the person using it.

Please tell me, what state has lowered their violent crime rate by banning or having severe restrictions on guns?

Violent crimes have dropped by 50% over the last 20 years while civilian firearms ownership has increased 60%. MA bucked the lowered violent crime trend by passing severe restrictions in ’98 & has seen their violent crime rate increase. Coincidence?

I live in an area of the State which has prime hunting in the nearby State forest & have noticed a drastic decline in the number of hunters’ cars parked along the side of the road during hunting season. I’ve also heard far fewer illegal “jack lighting” shots at night. It seems guns are up, hunting is down.
Sadly paranoia is up in this country & Americans don’t like to look foolish & like to feel justified in acting idiotic.
These mass shootings are only a symptom of a much deeper psychosis and we must stop looking for the solutions by following the same paths to the spot on the steel barrier on which we beat our heads against. We MUST take another path to better understand and seek more rational ideas than those tired worn out ones we keep returning to.
I just keep wondering why the bobby’s of London do not need to carry firearms, while we can’t seem to provide enough fire power to our constabulary.

I love the glittering generality used here from one person about hunting in his/her neck of the woods…oh,please allow me to use one as well. Today I drove by the Planned Parenthood office in Hartford and nobody was standing in line…so I guess abortions are on the decline in the Nutmeg state…Please equality, you must be on the A-list for liberal whine and cheese parties. You complain about Americans not wanting fooish, yet you just exposed yourself.

Expose myself? I certainly wouldn’t expose myself to you, however I can say with certainty that living in an area which has an overabundance of huntable wildlife, there are far fewer licensed hunters as well as illegal ones. There are far fewer gun shoots and fewer gutted deer hanging about the woods. I do not live in or about an abortion site in order to compare it with but fail to see the relationship you are implying. I mean killing and instuments of death are bad!!! Why must you be such a prejudicial fool? Every person’s experiences and values are different and can’t be combined into Limbaugh’s “tiger,” scenario. But than again, if you didn’t act prejudiced, you might not get the attention you crave. You poor baby you.

Equality 7-2521: First, no, I don’t think you want to expose yourself to a certain unmentioned poster here or you may become surprised by the response. Two, it seems, if I read it correctly, this certain poster scoops out abortion clinics in a metaphoric terms of the hunter.

One can only imagine the obsession and potential danger that lurks deep within his mind.

Two points: we do need to think differently and that includes job creation and opportunity and giving idle hands something constructive and sustaining to do. Full employment models would be preferred

The Bobbies in London myths is somewhat misunderstood. Each department has a set of Authorized Firearms Officers (AFOs or regular police with guns) and Specialist Firearms Officers (the equivalent of American SWAT teams). Then there’s the militia and Homeland Police.

equality,
Do you eat meat? Wear leather, use cosmetics? Drink milk? Are you a 100% vegan? I ask you these simple questions because it appears you don’t have a stomach for any kind of death. I don’t hunt, but what is more humane, a deer getting shot, or a deer starving to death? I hope that you are one of those liberals who just doesn’t talk a good game…that you actually live to the letters of the law of your moonbat liberalism.

This was the best you could do to honor these deaths?
—————————————————–
We’re talking legislation here; how to achieve some sort of practical set of rules that might “honor the deaths” by actually preventing similar crimes going forward. All anyone can ask is that our guys deliberate, that they consider both the practical effects of and the constitutionality of proposed laws. It’s unfair to suggest that Mr. Miner, or any of the legislators involved , is not considerate of the Sandy Hook victims. The plain truth is that any legislation devised can do nothing to ease their pain, and, in all probability, little to prevent further atrocities. Nonetheless, thanks to all of the legislators and witnesses for their work. And, God Bless Rand Paul!

Honor their deaths? I’m reminded of the death penalty politics in the wake of the Petite murders. Let’s honor the victims with executions! How glorious!

My favorite Democratic logical stretch so far; DWIs are responsible for mass murder and gun crime! If DWI offenders had their rights to firearms revoked then Lanza and Omar Thornton would never happen. Cities would be safe and drug violence no more !

The legislature has to address that 3 of CT’s counties experience virtually no deaths from firearms averaging only 1 death per year among the 3 of them. Most of the gun owners in those 3 counties either scratch their heads or are outraged at the proposals which appear to be aimed at harassing them and doing very little to target urban gun crime.

You could make a case for higher permitting and ammo costs in Hartford, New Haven, and Fairfield Counties as that’s where over 90% of CT firearm deaths occur.

Its just to easy for the Legislature to tax and regulate the outer counties while passing legislation that fails to address the urban problem effectively. All you need to do is look at urban schooling to approximate a guess as to how effective the legislatures proposals will be.

I have to admit I enjoy the spectacle of Washington passing legislation before CT does

Give a man a sandwich and he’ll eat that day.
Give a man a hammer and he’ll work for his food.
Give a man a gun and he’ll get food from the man with a hammer and take away a man’s sandwich.
Give a man a proper education and he’ll never figure out why some men need guns.
Give a frightened, paranoid, hateful population guns and you’ll not dare ask for a sandwich.

We as a society, and in a very big way, have awaken. Socially progressive movements take a long time to bear fruit. I think this time, a new day has dawned.

It is unfortunate that many massacres perpetuated by mostly white deranged shooters have caused us as a society to challenge the status quo of gun ownership. Black folks have known and have felt the pain and loss of gun killing much more than society at large and quite rightfully resentful that only when mostly little white children are killed, that sufficient attention is given.

I am compelled to recollect my history with regard to this racial divide. During the Vietnam Nam protest period, Black Panthers were summarily gun down by cops and the FBI across the country. But only when 4 white students were gun down at Kent State University did we rise up from a growing fringe group to a middle class revolt against the Vietnam Nam War did the movement become more effective. I know that some will make this an example of why we should have an armed citizenry. It is a legitimate considration. But the argument falls short in the face of the massive wanton destruction that easy access to guns creates.

We don’t live in North Korea where armed citizens would very much benefit from owning fire arms. We live in a democracy. We can change our government at will. We can then change our laws to reflect the needs of our people in any era. With the exception of the Civil War, a war predicated on fixing a problem part of the constitution that allowed some of us to be legally identified as property, we enjoy in perpetuity the privilege and right to change and modify our laws as needed.

We don’t need guns to effect these changes.

The reason this movement will not only last but eventually reach a satisfactory conclusion, is that our side has an inexhaustible supply of volunteers. They don’ t understand the extent of their commitment to the cause. And some of them don’t even know that they will contribute.

These people of which I speak are the future martyrs – future gun victims who will fortify the resolve of the rest of us to make this renegade society a safer one. Any one of us may be unwittingly called to sacrifice.

We have an inexhaustible supply of martyrs in waiting.

This is a fight. We will win. They will lose. This is the way the pro gun culture has identified the fight. So be it.

Let us not forget the ancient Roman propensity to massacure Christains. And to every Christain killed, it was said that 10 new converts came forth until the Emperor himself became a Christain. I’m not pushing that religion but only using it as an example in history.

We will be victorious. But it will take time. And much needless blood will be shed in the process.

“We don’t live in North Korea where armed citizens would very much benefit from owning fire arms. We live in a democracy. We can change our government at will. We can then change our laws to reflect the needs of our people in any era.”

no we do not live in a democracy that is a common misunderstanding, we live in a capitalist republic in which all power is vested in private interests such as the military industrial complex or the financial industry.

simply put ordinary citizens do not have power
to effect change because capital controls this country ,they control the media ,they control every branch of government at the federal and state level also they control the means of production in industry and it has always been that way.
the whole point of our system is to create the illusion of debate in a one party system with two competing business factions that agree on everything important ,debate has been limited to an narrow ideological spectrum
thus making it impossible to advance the interest of the common man. if you actually think that people take this political system seriously then why is the voting rate less than 50 percent in presidential elections and even less in the congressional elections. if less than half of the people don’t vote then in a sense the federal government is illegitimate since the majority of the people don’t actual consent to being governed.

thus to your claims that ” we don’t need guns to effect change” is stunningly ignorant there is no other way than force to change a system run by plutocrats , asking nicely never has worked. do you honestly believe that the ruling elite which have been waging endless wars since ww2 ,killing millions of people overseas for access to raw material and global hegemony will just peacefully give up power and allow a democracy where the people actual make the decisions ?

I am not advocating armed revolution i am simply anticipating it because of the planned decline our country is facing.
If things get worse there may be considerable social foment in which the ruling elite will harshly respond to . to those who think that armed conflict is impossible in America then why is our government preparing for such a conflict . why is the d.h.s is stockpiling billions of rounds of ammunition buying up thousands of assault rifles, buying 2,700 light armored vehicles (mraps),
procuring military drones. why is that the government has claimed it has the right to execute citizens without actionable intelligence or due process of the law and claims the right to indefinitely detain citizens without trial. saying that this is all a conspiracy theory is really pathetic considering that all of this is reported by the main stream media.

Does any reasonable person here really believe that stronger gun laws are going to stop mentally degranged people from committing horrific acts of violence? Really?! Fairy tale time is over, grown the heck up.

There are very strict laws about drugs…how’s that working out? Anyone here know an illegal? How are those strict laws regarding DUI working out? Anyone here ever drive 66 MPH on one of our highways? Anyone here know any New Yorkers who are drinking more than 16 oz of soda? You can have all of the laws you want…it doesn’t mean people are going to follow them. A better question perhaps is why did Adam Lanza’s mother take her son to a shooting range? Another question, why didn’t she get her son the help he needed? Why didn’t she secure her weapons knowing full well her son’s condition? Lanza was not well, and he purposefully chose a soft target. The kid was a crazy coward…I know the word crazy is going to upset the PC crowd here…but don’t allow facts to get in the way of your indignation.

I can’t stand abortion, if Row v. Wade was taken off of the books do I think that abortions will magically disappear…? No because I am not a childish libral living in a Utopia, CT. I wonder aloud if any of flaming liberals actually hear themselves when they try to run BS past the adults in the room.
Crazy people will do what they want to do…just like the lawless, if not by guns, then by another means.

Gee Todd, I didn’t know all liberals wanted to decriminalize marijuana. I could swear that I knew some who don’t. Personally I don’t see a lot of difference between it and alcohol, but I don’t use either one, so it doesn’t affect me either way.

Cynical, it wasn’t a Republican governor who decriminalized marijuana…it was the current creep, Malloy.

Funny how liberals are pro choice when it comes to things like abortion, but no choice when it comes to guns, rounds in a gun, size of soda you choose to drink…I know you are plenty smart, so I know you can see the hypocrisy…yes?
When animals, and death row inmates get more consideration than a baby, I guess that tells us all we really need to know about bleeding hearts…right? Do-gooding must be such a tiring experience.

To sum up one weakness: states with less gun ownership have lower rates of firearm death and perversely more gun laws. No one’s actually proven any relationship between specific legislation and firearm deaths which calls for increased study.

As I said above I hate the subject. Gun control is emotionally ripe for the Democrats to pass ridiculous stigmatizing and costly legislation without any social benefit. The studies are inconclusive enough to allow the GOP to nod knowingly that the status quo is sufficient at this present time until a task force can be formed and funded for the rest of our natural lifetimes.

Colin, how about fewer ‘death’ deaths or lower violent crime rather than ‘gun crime’?

For example, anti-gun groups like to lump suicides using a firearm into their ‘gun deaths’ category to make the numbers look worse. However, studies from places where gun bans have gone into effect show that the methods of suicide change but the numbers do not.

In Australia, for example, after their big gun confiscation gun suicides dropped by 60% while all other methods increased lead by hanging at +40%. The gun ban groups only point out the reduction in gun suicides & declare victory.

The studies I’m aware of are the Kates/Mauser study & Dave Kopel has studied it as well.

Not that the social science would be affected, but it’s worth noting that the Australian Constitution contains no individual right to arm for self-defense.
Here in Connecticut, where we do have such an explicit right,Justice Peters writing for our Supreme Court found the existing Ct. assault weapon ban constitutional. But, the opinion is, like Sheff by the same author, grossly dishonest.
So, new ban might pass muster here in the Nutmeg State using her Benjamin v. Bailey precedent, but now, since McDonald v. Chicago, the federal constitution as understood by the Fed Supremes will apply to the work of our legislature. I don’t know whether the constitutionality issue has been considered by currently acting committees or commissions, but there will be closer scrutiny applied by the feds than by Justice Peters. Our guys can’t simply do whatever they might want as if their police power here were unfettered.
———————————
The plaintiffs contend that the statutory ban on assault weapons should be declared unconstitutional because it fails to satisfy “strict scrutiny.” The plaintiffs’ contention involves a three step analysis. First, relying on language from Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 640-42, 376 A.2d 359 (1977) (Horton I) (state financing system for public education violates state constitutional 462*462 right to equal protection), the plaintiffs assert that because the right to bear arms is one of the rights articulated in article first of the state constitution, that right must be deemed “fundamental.” Second, because the right at issue is “fundamental,” the plaintiffs maintain, citing Daly v. DelPonte, 225 Conn. 499, 513, 624 A.2d 876 (1993) (classification by physical disability unconstitutional), that any infringement on the right must be subjected to strict scrutiny analysis. Finally, applying the strict scrutiny test, the plaintiffs argue that the statutory ban on assault weapons is not narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling government interest.

By phrasing their arguments in this manner, however, the plaintiffs have glossed over the crucial first step in the constitutional analysis. Application of a particular standard of judicial scrutiny presupposes the existence of an injury to a constitutionally protected interest.

I love Mr. Zaino’s reference to Row vs. Wade—is this some debate over what to do at the lake? And how do you wonder aloud—is that like thinking to yourself? But I digress: the point Colin makes about choosing the snake guy over the fourth-grade rhetoric constitutes the problem: can’t we do better than the clowns we elect to represent us?

The tail wags the dog. We are demanding of them. I am not unhappy with what we, those of us who want action NOW, have heard at least on the democratic side. I do maintain that unless we get rid of these semi automatic rifles and handguns, we are doomed to repeat the countless tragedies.

I am optimistic that mental health outreach will be a successful ingredient in this process. But I insist that we need only to observe other countries reactions and the success that have had.

An accident with a gun is irreversible. A purposeful intent to commit suicide having a gun at the ready has a high success rate.

Only this White House could get away with honoring an Anti-American, Anti-Semite…moonbat Hope and Changers here’s another proud moment for you and your wonderful causes! I think I like Moochele better when she’s yelling about junk food rather than this.

The low-information Obama voters won’t care what Michelle is doing, as long as they can see what she is wearing. Maybe CNN can replay Moochelle doing the “Mom Dance” in split-screen, alternating with Moochelle’s tug of war in The White House.

I wonder why Jackie Kennedy never held a tug-of-war inside The White House. Beyond that, where are the movies of Eleanor Roosevelt dancing around for a newsreel audience?

Putting that aside, this trip may offer a second time in her adult life for the dear woman to be proud of her country. Let’s all hope we can earn her respect just once more.

When I hold you in my arms (oh yes)
When I feel my finger on your trigger (oh yes)
I know nobody can do me no harm
Because
happiness is a warm gun, momma
Happiness is a warm gun
-Yes it is.
Happiness is a warm, yes it is…
Gun!
Well don’t ya know that happiness is a warm gun, momma? (yeah)

Colin, you can call Rep. Miner’s comment insensitive, you just can’t call it “wrong.” With reference to Steve (CT)’s comments about Australia, the same principle applies in Britain: fewer gun deaths, but far more violence.

Also, there’s a little simple problem. Per our federal and state constitutions, my right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Australia’s constitution provides no such protections.

An owner of an AR-15 rifle in Putnam or Salisbury didn’t cause Newtown. Heck, the licensed owner of the AR-15 rifle used in Newtown didn’t cause Newtown. It was a deranged, terrible, legal adult who caused Newtown.

We would have better luck banning deranged, terrible, legal adults than banning guns if we want to prevent another Newtown.

More recently, (2010) there were the Cumbria shootings in the UK. 12 killed & 11 wounded with a bolt action .22 rifle & a double barreled shotgun. No ‘assault’ weapon needed, almost as if it had more to do with the intent of the person wielding the firearm.

John, if you practice and practice, you will be able to spell Lawlor someday
I read up on the case you linked to.
I couldn’t find any support for the idea that he benefited from an early release program or that this has anything to do with politics. (It is both crass and childish to blame a horrible tragedy on political figures you don’t like.)
I may be missing something, but this looked to me like a combination of sentencing issues and a screw-up by probation officers.
What’s so depressing about you and Todd is that you’re both just rooting for laundry. It’s the equivalent — in terms of reflection — of rooting for the Knicks vs. the Celtics. You never entertain the thought that your side might be wrong or the other side might have a point. There have been studies illustrating how easy it is to get people to adopt a position by persuading them it’s the position of “their” party, even when it isn’t. You guys are the extreme of that. You’d go for anything, as long as you were confident it was Republican.

Well, I’m not sure what is meant by “anything to do with politics.” We do,reportedly, have a new law providing for “early release” of some prisoners, and, reports are that some of the releases so far haven’t worked out that well. One might think that Malloy would have a word or two to say about Frankie “The Razor” Resto, maybe apologize to the victim’s family. But, as things stand now it would appear to me that Malloy’s concern is not so much for the well being of normal law-abiding citizens nor for rights afforded them under the Nutmeg Constitution.
————————————-
He asked the governor, “Do you think that your life is more important than mine?”

Mr. Malloy advised Mr. Berry “if you pass a background check, you get to keep [your gun].”
——————————
Republicans, who voted against the bill, were skeptical about those who would be eligible for the program and it appears their worries are becoming reality as recent murders in East Hartford and Meriden have been linked to prisoners awarded early release.

Frankie Resto, an inmate released early through the risk reduction program, allegedly gunned down Ibrahim Ghazal, a convenient store owner in Meriden.

And in East Harford, another inmate out on early release allegedly murdered Luthfur Tarafdar. The suspect’s extensive criminal background includes robbery, assault and violation of probation, but he was still allowed early release from prison.

And these are not the only alarming stories surrounding the controversial program.

The real problem with early release for crack offenders is the dearth of release services for prisoners. Government needs to get them jobs upon release and a slot in a halfway house and work with them as closely a possible to get resituated.

Some won’t fly.

Letting these crack guys out early in a recession without support services is a joke. And its a sick bi-partisan joke.

Government doesn’t always think about the big picture when doing things: As an example, they’ve made it very difficult for landlords to evict which is good; OTOH they now have a problem of intensive background checks courtesy of the internet and aggressive salesmen which means landlords won’t take on dicey characters like ex-prisoners without 2 years job experience and immaculate references.

What are these guys going to do? They get kicked out of a homeless center within 90 days if they got a slot. Jobs are scarce. Construction and day labor is stalled.

A Full employment model? Not today. That’s not the way votes are bought today. Votes are bought by special interest civil rights groups and their constant yammering. With felons denied the right to vote we won’t see a voting block of ex-prisoners backing post-release services.

Maybe the courts intervene. It won’t be the Governor or Legislature. There’s no one to buy their votes.

We’re not talking about crack guys here, Richard. There is a difference of opinion as to whether his release was part of the new-fangled early release deal. Without knowing more, I’m inclined to believe Michelle Cruz over Lawlor. The anti-gun guys proclaim that if even one life is saved a new set of statutes is justified. The same rationale would suggest that getting rid of this statute is a very good idea.
———————————
East Hartford Murder Suspect Has Long Record
courant.com — Since turning 18 in October 2004, Kezlyn Mendez has been arrested nine times, the latest on Monday in connection with the killing of an East Hartford store clerk. While he was in prison for previous offenses, Mendez’s behavior was so bad he was sent to Northern Correctional Institution in Somers, where the most troublesome of the state’s prisoners are housed, the records indicate.
——————
State Victim Advocate Michelle Cruz said East Hartford convenience store murder suspect Kezlyn Mendez, was released from prison early as a result of the state’s new Risk Reduction Earned Credit Program.http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Advocate-Halt-Early-Release-Program-167788505.html

Resto, whose street nickname is Razor, has a criminal history of armed robberies. According to police reports, he was convicted in two incidents within the same week in July 2006. He was sentenced to six years and three months in prison after pleading guilty to first-degree robbery, and two years after he pleaded guilty to third-degree robbery, according to the state Judicial Branch website. If the sentences were served concurrently, his original release date would have been sometime this fall.
Resto was released in April due to time served and several months of risk reduction credits.http://www.myrecordjournal.com/latestnews/article_0d042fb6-c849-11e1-8bf5-001a4bcf887a.html

These guys weren’t part of the Federal Crack release but that program has similar flaws.

Michele Cruz is asking the wrong questions and making the wrong points. Its why I oppose the creation of her position to begin with. Her interest is in the victim and calling attention to the fact Resto got released 199 days early.

Cruz isn’t paid to address how Resto would be best handled whether released in April or November. Cruz is not responsible for creating solutions. Instead she’s paid to call attention to the victims grief and injustice. IF Cruz was released and killed someone else so what? Her current victim would be alive. That’s the entire scope of her argument

These state-appointed special interest advocates for women, LGBT rights and criminal victims are not problem solvers looking after social solutions that benefit all of society. It’s not in their genetic code to benefit general society. Rather they push divisive, narrow-minded solutions to address their mandate and usually do so at the expense of critical thinking and balanced solutions for the community.

I’d have Cruz and her ilk arrested for the common good :).

Lawlor is a different story. I do applaud his attempts at deinstitutionalization and prison consolidation and overtime budgetary control. I don’t think he has a clue how to properly measure risk, to give prisoners the support they need upon release, or of proper boundaries (that goes back to his unconstitutional Catholic Church legislation).

Lawlor needs to change legislation so low risk offenders like blue collar and white collar DWI and low quantity drug offenders who are non-violent but serving mandatory minimums are given release over felons where the state has greater leeway on some forms of early release.

The problem of course are single issue advocacy groups like MADD who would prefer to see rapists released than one DWI prisoner before their time.

This is the tragedy: a state house loaded with single issue advocates and lobbyists getting all the attention. We need pruning shears. And lots of them.

John? Are we on a first name basis now Mr. McEnroe? As I recall Lawlor’s excuse for that Frankie Resto dirtbag killing Meriden store owner Ibrahim Ghazal was that he was *not really* released because of the program. Now the same is true for the new killer? Even granting that is true, which I don’t, does it really make a difference in your argument? We shape public policy to prevent such things. Even if you and Malloy and Lawlor can weasel out of responsibility for these two murders, what about the future? If you let out violent dirtbags on society, they are going to hurt someone or worse. Do you get it?

You want to punish law abiding gun owners (take another shot State Senator Bye) who had nothing to do with these murders and yet you have a soft spot for real killers. That is kind of fucked up. Why no sympathy for the two men these people killed? What happened in Newtown was not Malloy’s or your or Lawlor’s fault. The other two murders however were your fault.

The other two murders however were your fault.
———————-
Come on, John R. ; rein it in a bit. Criminals alone responsible for their doings.
It’s sufficient to assert that the early release program gratuitously increases risk. Can’ get rid of it, though. In fact, can’t even admit its a problem. Better to get rid of Ms. Cruz. If we were seriously interested in reducing crime we’d keep these barbarians in jail as long and often as possible. Nor would we have placed a priority on getting rid of the death penalty.

Liberals soft on criminals, yet so hard on the unborn…talk about screwed priorities.

Allowing early release, another in the long list of liberal feel-good policy…that blows in in the face of common sense.
I wonder if all of these do-gooders would feel the same if one of these Boy Scouts/altar boys did something to someone that they loved.

Sorry Mr. Bush but you are wrong. The policy is so dumb as dirt stupid and it is so predictable that these violent people will hurt more people again that I do absolutely blame anyone in favor of it for what harm comes.

Its not a game. Two people are dead here. Does there have to be more? Anyone remember Willie Horton? Now they want to let out that monster that killed John Cluny’s little boy and wife. We learned a very hard lesson in the 1970s that you can’t rehabilitate these monsters. We start letting them all out, expect the bodies to pile up again.

I never have owned a gun. Maybe it is time to buy one while I still can.

You may safey say I root for the Red Sox, Patriots, (did you know that the NE Pats actually shoot guns off when they score?),Michigan State, Celtics,…and a little something called the Consititution. I am sure you’ve heard of it before, you know the document that President Obama continues to ignore…yeah, that one.

You truly cracked me up in your above post about how easy it is to get people to the position of their party…were you awake during the summer of 2008? The summer of let’s all love everything, and anything Obama? What’s sad to me is that liberals will never call fellow liberals on a single thing. Obama really got re-elected in 2012 with that four year record? Pot meet Colin. Funny you calling John and me “extreme” well Colin, I believe you are the same…but for the other team. What is “crass” and “childish” is making a big deal out of how Lawlor is spelled, I guess you’ve never had a typo…must be wonderful to never have made an error.

Cynical I know you don’t own a TV, but when the Pats score, past the end zone there are several men dressed in Revolutionary War grab…I am pretty confident that the guns shoot blanks…pretty harmless. The nickname, and shooting of a fake guns is really no big deal-just a part of whole show.Back in the day the Milwaukee Brewers used to have a mascot go down a slide into a giant pool that looked like beer whenever they hit a home run.

This is consistent with Nixon the liberal who proposed combining Medicare. Medicaid, Worker Health, and unemployment health policies into one national health policy program.

Unions tanked Nixon’s universal health bill: it was long known the proposal frightened the bejeezus out of unions as health benefits were and are one of the few benefits of paying union dues. Take health benefits and defined pensions off the table and unions would lose all political clout.

Thank you very much Colin, for the column. Enjoy is the wrong word but I did get a lot out of it.

On another note, I remember many years ago shortly after arriving to this country, while shopping at Fox’s with my mother. As was a custom back then, another mother walks up to mine and asks if her son could be my friend. I looked over to see a boy dressed in chaps, fringed vest, cowboy hat, cowboy boots with every accessory most young “men” dreamed of back than, including a fine set of cap pistols adorning his hips. When my mother encouraged me to say hi to him, he drew his guns, points them at me and says “Bang, bang, your dead,” laughs and does it over again.
Having a grandfather who was blown up, an uncle who was killed by gun fire and another that was disabled for life by guns as well as an 8 wk old sister killed by the allies after the war, I have I suppose, a slightly perverse attitude towards playful killing. I came to realize that much of children’s play time and values were taken up by cowboys & indians, war, good guys/bad guys type games.
Most will say that they grew up just fine & just got it out of their system as young-uns. But basic core values, I feel, are impressed upon us at this stage of life.
When modern life gets a bit confussing or frustrating folks just want to return to the personel Willoughby of their youth.
In our country the sacred values are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which shouldn’t be destroyed by too broad an interpretation of added rights.

We’ve nurthured a country of cowards, many of which insanely look to firearms for security because they are quite frankly too dumb to solve the roots of their problems. Some have also continued to make them playthings & our military mentality cheapens human life.

I’m glad many bloggers have well reasoned thoughts and research to present their views and hopefully arrive at sensible compromises we can live with. I feel it can be done, yet unreasoned fear seems to be taking over.

And yes Todd, I’m much more conservative than you think I am but I will cringe like a coward in preparation of the ignorant, insulting epitates you enjoy hurling at me.

I suspect you would have problems talking with Mark Twain or George Eliot or maybe some folks I know with the first birth names of Borden or Creepy. All names are arbitrary and you really can’t be sure of the validity of any name. My “pen name,” as you refer to it, represents my values much more than a John Smith would and should be much more helpful in understanding me as an individual.
And to think I thought there were other reasons for not having an adult back & forth.

” I guess you don’t care to maintain civil discourse & actually try to understand what is being said to you. ”

equality 7-2521, it appears to me that Todd uses whatever methods he can to avoid real discussion about points brought up by his challengers, and to ridicule anyone who doesn’t agree with him. Over the past few years I’ve seen him divert and diffuse and demean, and then crow about it.

The President is trying to make the sequestor work in his favor by working with the GOP and Military to make the right cuts. I doubt both Groton Naval and Electric Boat survive. The military has both on their lists.

There’s no Lieberman this time around to lobby and hold his vote over the head of a President and Senate Majority Leader on major issues and say “I could swing either way. Maybe we should forget about the CT closures?”

Funny to me that all of the leftists here are all hot and bothered about guns and gun control, yet you never hear a whimper from them about Obama and Holder’s Fast Furious. Gee I wonder why we have to cue the cricket sound track when Fast and Furious is ever mentioned?

Nanny Bloomberg’s soda ban goes into effect on Tuesday! Word on the street is that the good nanny now wants to do something about headphones…because, like duh, you can go deaf from them!

If it’s soda and guns today, will headphones, bacon, chocolate, and salt be far behind? Good thing we’ve all got liberals out in front banging their drums against soda and guns. I don’t know about the rest of you…but I feel safer!

Mr. McEnroe:
Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable thinking in regard to the ridiculous comment by Mr. Minor who appears a major idiot in apparently defining ignorance as refined refuse of an infertile mind.

What makes America great isn’t a bunch of gun nuts. What makes us great is three branches of government and an intelligent and free press.

How our gun huggers can be so frightened of necessary and appropriate control of their weapons of mass destruction is almost comical. We are no less free when guns are registered, owners licensed and sales documented.

Arguing against these basic protections is an excellent measure of how dangerous the few rabid gun nuts can be.

Some, like the Yeager monster from Tennessee, who got on YouTube to urge the reckless slaughter of innocent people and a civil war are exactly the types sensible legislation is meant to protect all of us from.

PS: Could the Courant please spell your name correctly in the daily email. Today you are now Mcenroe.

This is why I love liberals so much. They are like a gift that just keeps on giving and giving, then when you think they have given you enough…they give you more. I am loathe to use the word delicious unless I am talking about food…but I found this little article to be delicious!

The bottom line here is that gun owners were not responsible enough to police themselves and now that they have come to task for their own recklessness, are peeing in their pants and crying like a bunch of babies.
Stop pointing your fingers and take your “punishment” like real men and women for a change.

What I find funny is how do all of these anti-gun people suppose it will be policed? I don’t think that guns will be outlawed…but just for liberal fun pretend that all guns are illegal. Do you think that the citizens are going to freely bring all of their guns to the local townhall? Does anyone here think that some may hand in a few guns but secretly keep others? What about the criminal element? They have already proven that they don’t enjoy following laws…so suddenly they are going to see the light and obey this one…really!? Just like if Row v. Wade was overturned, so now the whole abortion industry is gone…please.

You are right Todd, once the lady takes off her girdle its hard if not impossible to stuff her back in especially if she’s loaded up on extra pastries since. No one’s taking away my guns, especially those who would commit a crime with them. It’s my responsibility to make sure they are safe and secure from any nuts that are out there and if I know of any that has one, do whatever I can to correct the problem. Gun owners should have realized by now that if they don’t police themselves, things will get out of hand as has already happened.
I hope there is a sane cure for this insanity.
Let’s solve one problem at a time.

Since September of 2011 Connecticut has prematurely freed thousands of hardened criminals from jail under the so-called “Early Release Law”. Already hundreds of these criminals have been re-arrested after having committed more vicious crimes including murder and rape after they had been let loose under this flawed law. Connecticut’s Victim Advocate, Michelle Cruz has joined the cause publicly calling for the end of Early Release because it is dangerous and it betrays justice for the victims of crime.

You can make a difference by joining thousands of other Connecticut citizens demanding an end to this reckless law. The first step is to call for a public hearing on Senator Markley’s proposed legislation to terminate the program. Sign the petition below to begin the process of ending Early Release in Connecticut

Sign the Petition

END EARLY RELEASE PETITION

We the undersigned petitioners call upon Governor Malloy and the Connecticut Legislature to end the so-called “Early Release Law” that prematurely frees from jail hardened criminals guilty of such heinous crimes as rape, child molestation, arson, armed robbery and other vicious and violent crimes. Already at least 2 such hardened criminals released under Connecticut’s flawed Early Release Law have been charged with murder. Many other prematurely freed convicts have been arrested and charged with sexual and violent crimes. It is time to put the safety of Connecticut families ahead of misplaced sympathy for hardened criminals. We insist the Legislature having hearings on Senator Markley’s proposed legislation to terminate Connecticut’s fatally flawed Early Release Program as soon as possible.http://endearlyrelease.com/

Peter this is outstanding-thanks for sharing this. Yet another example of do-gooder liberalism run amuck. It’s so easy to sign off on early release…I wonder how the do-gooders among us would feel once one of these creeps hurts or kills somebody they love?

American drones killing Americans, government run free health care, government access to your finances, HLS buying 1.6 rounds of ammunition, soda police…nothing to see here folks…keep your head down and obey Dear Leader!